Does it really count as 'the fundamental' disbelief, if it's only the one?
You speak of 'the fundamentals' or 'the fundamental thing' out of a larger whole. But could you really call one single disbelief a 'fundamental disbelief' if it's the only one? Saying it's one disbelief is enough, to say that it's 'one fundamental disbelief and nothing more', just seems totally gratuitous to me. It's just one disbelief, that's enough, the 'fundamentalist' part does nothing, if it's just the one disbelief then obviously that's fundamental to it - because it's the only one and that's all it is! So it doesn't need to be said that it's the 'fundamental disbelief' since it's the only one, that doesn't really make sense that way in my view.
So what is it to mean by 'atheist fundamentalist' then, that isn't to simply mean 'atheist'? I think such a term is completely gratuitous, totally unneeded. If it is to mean anything it is to mean nothing more than simply atheism. Unless it is the name for a strawman of atheism
EvF
You speak of 'the fundamentals' or 'the fundamental thing' out of a larger whole. But could you really call one single disbelief a 'fundamental disbelief' if it's the only one? Saying it's one disbelief is enough, to say that it's 'one fundamental disbelief and nothing more', just seems totally gratuitous to me. It's just one disbelief, that's enough, the 'fundamentalist' part does nothing, if it's just the one disbelief then obviously that's fundamental to it - because it's the only one and that's all it is! So it doesn't need to be said that it's the 'fundamental disbelief' since it's the only one, that doesn't really make sense that way in my view.
So what is it to mean by 'atheist fundamentalist' then, that isn't to simply mean 'atheist'? I think such a term is completely gratuitous, totally unneeded. If it is to mean anything it is to mean nothing more than simply atheism. Unless it is the name for a strawman of atheism
EvF
